Inmates Rights Preserved, at least that
is what the headlines said inthe Arizona Republic newspaper. The
article was about the recentdecision of the Arizona Department
of Corrections to close all the lawlibraries permanently on August 4,
1997 (except the central unit librarythat is covered by a separate law suit).

All this began back in 1990 when 22
inmates of the Arizona Department ofCorrections filed a class action law
suit - and one of their claims wasthat they were being denied effective
access to the courts. The ACLUNational Prison Project took up the
case on behalf of the inmates. Thiswas after the successful Gluth law
suit that set guidelines for theCentral Unit Law Library. The case
was heard by federal judge CarlMuecke who ruled in favor of the inmates
and issued an injunction thatset forth detailed and system-wide
changes in the entire department’sprison law libraries and in the legal
assistance programs.

The ruling mandated he number of hours
for prison courses, thequalifications required for the instructor
(an outside certifiedparalegal, trained law student or attorney),
class content (one-third ofthe time to be spent on lectures, two-thirds
on fundamentals of researchand writing), and the method of testing
(written exam, pass/fail). Alsothe law clerks had to have passed this
test to assist those notrequesting a legal assistant. The article
stated how this was costingthe taxpayers untold dollars, when
in actuality it all boiled down to amulti-hour video tape that was played
for less than a dozen inmatesevery six months or so. It sounded
more detailed and expensive than itwas.

Also included in the Casey v Lewis law
suit was a list of law books thatwas to be maintained in the libraries
along with some self-help books.The majority of the 34 existing law
libraries aready had those volumes.However, it seems that the Department
of Corrections had its spindoctors working overtime because the
general public was and is convincedthat the cost of these law libraries
was coming out of the taxpayers’pocket. The truth is that the funds
to pay for maintaining the librariescame out of the inmate Arts & Recreation
Fund. All the profits from theinmate commissary go into this fund
and the state takes this money anduses it to purchase what is needed
for the libraries. The inmates havebought and paid for the libraries.
The authorities don’t tell that tothe public, rather they present the
public with lies.

The state did not like the outcome of
the law suit so they appealed thedecision to the next highest court,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.The state republicans being of the
opinion that the Federal DistrictCourt was micro-managing the affairs
of the state considered that thiswas inappropriate. The Ninth Circuit
rejected their claim and upheld thedecision of the lower court.

Then came the 1994 election in which
the republicans gained a majorityin both houses of Congress. State republicans
across the country unitedwith their counterparts in Congress
and were effective in having twomajor pieces of legislation passed.
There was the Antiterrorism andEffective Death Penalty Act of 1996
that severely restricted our habeascorpus rights, and there was the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Thislatter act is real bad news. It allows
states to dissolve consentdecrees by petitioning the courts and
it also affects the habeas corpusrelief we can obtain.

With this wave of mean-spiritedness
and the success of these bills, thestate decided to appeal the Ninth Circuit
decision to the U.S. SupremeCourt on a writ of certiorari. This
is not an automatic appeal. You mustbrief the court and ask if they will
accept your case. The partybringing such requests is unsuccessful
97% of the time. It is only thespecial cases that are taken on by
the court. However, since JusticesRenquist and O’Connor are both from
the state of Arizona, it came as nosurprise that the case was accepted.

When the decision was announced, Justice
Scalia, writing for themajority, said that inmates could not
be guaranteed ‘ ... thewherewithal to transform themselves
into litigating engines capable offiling everything from shareholder
derivative actions to slip-and-fallclaims. The tools it requires to be
provided are those that the inmatesneed in order to attack their sentences,
directly or collaterally, andin order to challenge the conditions
of their confinement. Impairment ofany other litigation capacity is simply
one of the incidental (andperfectly constitutional) consequences
of conviction and incarceration.The Supreme Court also said that Judge
Muecke’s order was ‘ ...inordinately, indeed wildly intrusive.
There is no need to belabor thispoint. One only has to read the order
...’

So for the last year since they won
this decision the Department ofCorrections has been drafting its new
policy on access to the courts.Officials have come up with a system
in which they will permanentlyclose all the law libraries. All the
books will be donated to variousorganizations and they will hire
a paralegal who will assist inmates infilling out one of three legal forms,
pertaining to: Habeas Corpus,Civil Rights (1983), and Post Conviction
Relief. That is all they willdo. Just help you fill in the blanks.
They will not prepare a case foryou or give any recommendations or
advice. The director stated on TVthat once the inmate has filed the
forms in the court, the court willappoint an attorney to assist the inmate.
I can testify that this is notso. I have personally handled five
Civil Rights complaints for variousinmates and not once were we granted
an attorney to assist us. So itwill be interesting to say the least
to observe what happens to thecourt protections that are supposedly
guaranteed to all Americans.

The Arizona Republic editorial closed
with the statement - ‘At longlast, the balance seems to have shifted
to the middle, where the rightsof inmates are protected while Arizona
taxpayers no longer are requiredto finance luxurious law libraries
for convicted felons.’

It is amazing how little value we attach
to a human life. It seems attimes that we care more about saving
the lives of stray animals at theshelter. We abhor the thought of sticking
a needle into an animal toeuthanize it. However, humans are more
expendable.

Few remember back to Gideon v Wainwright
(83 SCL 792, 372 US 335).Gideon was an uneducated black man
in Florida who was arrested for acrime, did not have the money to pay
for an attorney, and was sent toprison. In those days there was no
right to a court-appointed attorney.While in prison Gideon learned how
to use the law library and filed writafter writ until he won. In the process
of gaining his freedom, he set aprecedent in which the landmark decision
came down that guaranteed alldefendants the right to an attorney
if he or she lacked sufficient fundsto pay for legal representation.
Gideon would have died in prison if hedid not have access to an adequate
and effective law library. As meageras his library was, at least he had
the tools to attack his conviction.It is clear that the state of Arizona
does not want to have anyone finda way to fight his or her case. It
is just unthinkable not to have a lawlibrary. And also included in the new
policy is the elimination ofinmate legal representatives, law clerks,
and indigent legal supplies.Also our confidential attorney phone
calls will now be monitored andrecorded. I question the legality of
such a procedure.

In a country that so values its Christian
ideals to the point of beingconsidered parochial in many ways by
the rest of the world, one thatcares so much about issues such as
abortion, and physician-assistedsuicide, there is clearly little concern
about how society hastens thedeath of those on death row. Are we
not worth more than an animal or anunborn child? Are we not human beings
worthy of compassion, or do wehave no value at all?